I & I Editorial BoardWe have been constantly told for what seems like as long as we can remember that Antarctica is shrinking because man’s carbon dioxide emissions are overheating our planet. While fearmongering has made its way around the world countless times, the truth is still pulling on its boots.
So what is the truth? It’s quite straightforward: Antarctic sea ice has been growing.
According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, the continent’s annual maximum sea ice has grown for three straight years. The annual mean is increasing, and the annual minimum has also expanded for three consecutive years. The long-term trend lines for the annual maximum and mean, starting in 1979, are noticeably moving upward, while the trend line for the annual minimum is ascending, as well, though much more modestly.
Doesn’t fit the doomsday narrative, does it?
Please don’t think this is an isolated and therefore meaningless example. There are many other facts that show the global warming fears are overblown.
For instance, two years ago, we showed that predictions claiming that the Great Lakes were drying up due to man-made global warming were, if we might use a term favored by the current occupant of the White House, malarkey.
Moving up to today, we’re reading that “many parts of Europe have not had much of a real summer, having seen much cool and wet weather this year,” and that there’s August snow in Austria, which is not just “one-day freak weather event” but the beginning of a snowy period and a usually cool cycle.
We’ve also recently learned:
- There’s been no change in sea surface temperatures along Australia’s the Great Barrier Reef in 150 years.
- That sea levels near British Columbia were almost 300 feet higher 14,500 years ago than they are today, and were about 30 feet higher 1,800 years ago.
- Deaths associated with extreme temperatures have been declining since 2000.
- Environmental Protection Agency and National Hurricane Center data “show hurricanes have neither become more numerous or more powerful during the past half-century of modest warming.”
Despite these facts and the many more that have been documented over the decades, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has created an office that treats climate change as a public-health issue; alarmists are calling for a global climate strike on Sept. 24 in which the protesters – and likely rioters – will demand “intersectional climate justice”; and Washington’s Democrats continue to agitate for more spending on climate projects that will do nothing beyond emptying taxpayers’ pockets.
Of course, these are just a few in-the-moment developments. The climate alarmists have been running a nonstop racket for decades, always demanding more of other people’s money and greater power over others’ lives. As long as they keep it up, we’ll continue to point out the gaping holes in their tales. It’s our public service.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
“The climate alarmists have been running a nonstop racket for decades” I&I
That’s for sure! Unfortunately, being a lucrative fraud at the highest levels ensures perpetuation. Especially with the media and big tech colluding as propaganda & censorship organs. Not only lots of money to be harvested, but a pathway towards absolute political power for the USA’s totalitarian socialists.
Between COVID & Climate Change, we are on a path towards “forever mandates”. The Biden “rush” to abandon the Afghanistan “forever war” allows full focus on their more important goal of imposing mandates on the USA population. Russia’s 1917 Bolshevik revolution acted in a similar way, abandoning lands to Germany in humiliating fashion to more fully focus on creating their totalitarian socialist “workers’ paradise” of forced labor camps and gulags. Birds of a feather flock together.
The doomsayers have been wrong for over a century. Their track record continues.
Global warming? You mean Gullible warming.
Excellent article!
I do have to say that 116 degrees in my home town of Portland was a bit unsettling. Normal temperature for that date is 77 degrees. When I was a boy in the 1950’s we seldom had summer day in the 90’s, now we have a couple of weeks worth each summer. My brother in law has farmed apples and soft fruit for over 50 years. The growing season has advanced at least two weeks earlier during that time. I am not a scientist nor claim to have answers….but something appears to be happening where I live.
Notice also that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 32% in the last 75 years. So where is climate Armageddon? Why aren’t we all dead?
You need to consult with someone who passed a high school physics course, which clearly no one on your staff did, and none of the other people posting here did.
I will take the first point and attempt with short sentences using simple words to explain why global warming will cause an increase in all antarctic ice.
When the world gets warmer, that means that the oceans will get warmer.
Not everywhere because the oceans are large complex dynamic systems that are not homogeneous so that in some places may not get warmer.
Warmer oceans means that more water will evaporate into the atmosphere.
That evaporated water will not stay in the atmosphere, but will come back down.
You will be hard pressed to find an area of less than 100,000 sq miles that has less precipitation now than it had, say 30 years ago
When it comes down in areas where it is below freezing, like the Antarctic, it will come down as snow.
The snow will eventually compress into ice.
Thus warmer temperatures means more precipitation which means more snow in the antarctic which means more ice in the antarctic. Now the antarctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, but not fast enough to melt all the additional snow that falls. In fact, the average year round maximum temperature in the antarctic is still minus 15 degrees F, so not nearly enough to melt the snow that falls.
I hope that this explanation was simple enough for you to understand. I do not expect you to print it because conservatives are NEVER EVER EVER wrong. Go — find some post somewhere where a conservative has admitted that they were wrong. This is also why less than 10% of practicing scientists identify as republican or conservative. By definition of being a conservative means unwilling to learn new stuff that does not come from some revered leader.
You need to consult with someone who passed a high school physics course, which clearly no one on your staff did, and none of the other people posting here did.
I will take the first point and attempt with short sentences using simple words to explain why global warming will cause an increase in all antarctic ice.
When the world gets warmer, that means that the oceans will get warmer.
Not everywhere because the oceans are large complex dynamic systems that are not homogeneous so that in some places may not get warmer.
Warmer oceans means that more water will evaporate into the atmosphere.
That evaporated water will not stay in the atmosphere, but will come back down.
You will be hard pressed to find an area of less than 100,000 sq miles that has less precipitation now than it had, say 30 years ago
When it comes down in areas where it is below freezing, like the Antarctic, it will come down as snow.
The snow will eventually compress into ice.
Thus warmer temperatures means more precipitation which means more snow in the antarctic which means more ice in the antarctic. Now the antarctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, but not fast enough to melt all the additional snow that falls. In fact, the average year round maximum temperature in the antarctic is still minus 15 degrees F, so not nearly enough to melt the snow that falls.
I hope that this explanation was simple enough for you to understand. I do not expect you to print it because conservatives are NEVER EVER EVER wrong. Go — find some post somewhere where a conservative has admitted that they were wrong. This is also why less than 10% of practicing scientists identify as republican or conservative. By definition of being a conservative means unwilling to learn new stuff that does not come from some revered leader.
Also — in line with your being stupid. Your google login does not work!!!!
The melting ice caps scare and rising ocean level were predictions made by climate alarmists themselves. The author suggests it was all bonkers. So perhaps you should save those explanations for meteorologists who clearly need to update their models with your newfound theory of polar ice accumulation.
Maybe you can produce such an example. The nearest that I came was:
It took a while for the idea to take hold. Advanced numerical ice-sheet models developed in the late 1980s tended to downplay the risk of rapid ice loss from western Antarctica, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable. But evidence to the contrary mounted: the massive Larsen A and B ice shelves collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively, followed by a major rift in Larsen C in 2017. In 2014, a team of scientists declared that the loss of ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment had accelerated and appeared “unstoppable”.
But this is NOT a prediction of net ice loss. It is ice moving off of the land mass into the ocean. Do I really need to explain why these two things are different? antarctic ice shelf collapse is not the same as net ice melting.
It is also not the same as ice loss from the Arctic. The physics of Ice on the ocean and Ice on land are very different in a warming world because water is different from land.
Turns out that we are both wrong, but me less so. Antarctic ice is expanding but for more complex reasons. https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice. And eventually AGW will overwhelm the reasons for growth.
You folks really should to some research, and try to do it without confirmation bias, though as conservatives with a refusal to learn new stuff, this would be almost impossible.
So global warming causes the ice field to grow & the warming temps aren’t high enough to melt it? Doesn’t that imply a coming ice age or something?
GFY
No, Next question.
I wouldn’t be hard pressed to find large area with less rainfall over the last 30 years… the western US has seen severe drought for a very long time. But yes, tell me more about packed snow ice caps.
Um, have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath? It tells the story of a family whose life is shattered by the Dust Bowl ‘climate’ about 100 years ago. And then, some decades later, the Dust Bowl ended.
Now, about 100 years later, it seems to have returned. Many folks, even ‘scientists,’ have noticed a cyclical nature for weather and climate, with cycles of widely varying periodicity, and when the right ones start to coincide, large shifts in “average weather” can result.
Or, you can deny it.
If the Reviewers here permit hyperlinks, I’d like to offer one of mine, to many years of collecting reports and graphs which, on average, tend to debunk most of the claims of Al Gore and the IPCC:
http://www.plusaf.com/homepagepix/__pix-nav/_global-warming-links.htm
Few ‘warmites’ are willing to even look at any evidence that disagrees with their beliefs and conclusions. Fewer, still, are the number who offer ANYTHING to refute, with evidence, ANY of the links on those pages.
I recently engaged with a local group here in Raleigh, NC… a group, each member of which (other than I) have incredible cv’s of places they’ve worked, schooled, companies they’ve created, grown and sold for massive amounts of money.
But none have read any of my links, though the ‘leader of the group’ has not hesitated to repeatedly insult me with many ad hominem attacks, denigrating me up and down but _never_ refuting anything that the linked studies or papers assert.
@transrp
Whilst you are correct about warmer oceans potentially causing higher amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere and therefore the potential for higher rainfall (and snow) your physics lesson doesn’t quite pass muster when you conflate it with increasing sea ice near the poles as documented by the article.
As a scientist in the relevant field, I can tell you that sea ice area is a function of the ocean’s temperature in the polar regions and that it does not form from snow at all. Sea ice is formed when the ocean’s temperature falls below -18 deg C (depending on the salinity). Each summer part of the sea ice that formed during the previous winter melts as the water temperature of the ocean rises. The reason the Antarctic sea ice area falls to a much smaller area than it does in the Arctic during summer is because the continental margin of Antarctica is further away from the actual South Pole (and therefore slightly warmer water). Since there is no land mass at the North Pole the summer sea ice area and extent is much larger.
Maximum sea ice area around Antarctica has increased for the past four years (and is likely to be five years after this years maximum in September (this month), which could be record since satellite records have been kept (1979)).
Relax… parts of the world are getting colder… much colder.
“. . . the Antarctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet . . ”
and
“. . . the average year round maximum temperature in the Antarctic is still minus 15 degrees F . . .”
The two statements above are mutually exclusive. For all you global warming fear mongers with two digit IQs, that means both statements cannot be true at the same time . This causes the reader to question the veracity of mister transrp’s harangue.
Living in SoCal – that is suffering another crippling drought – I sure wish some of that increased precipitation mister transrp talked about, would give California a good drenching. And, if I’m not mistaken, I believe Californian is far larger than 100,000 sq miles.
Finally, it is incredibly arrogant for mere mortals to believe they can affect something as large and complex as global “climate”. Witness the tone of mister transrp’s rant.
California is one of the few exceptions. It is, however, more than offset by the rest of the country, and most of the world for that matter. Just consider the eastern half of the US. As to arrogance… Well How about ignorance. Or is Mister Positivity going to claim that all the current weather events are in line with what has been happening for the past 1000 years? That the once in a hundred year events happening ever 10 years is somehow normal.
As to the effects of humans on the globe. My guess is that Mr. Positivity suffers from a negative balance in terms of learning new stuff, or he would be aware of something called An·thro·po·cene. the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
But what would those arrogant geologists, chemists and other scientists know when compared to Mr. Positivity who may have passed an upper division physics course. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/anthropocene/
mister transrp …. suggest you bone up on Milankovitch cycles, if you can read better than an 8th grader.
As for your, elite, arrogant geologists, chemists and other scientists, funded by our government through multimillion dollar grants to reach pre-ordained conclusions – I guess those were the same geologists, chemists and other scientists that were hypothesizing we were going into another Ice Age in 1974 (see Time Magazine June 24, 1974 and Newsweek April 28, 1975).
That said, what’s so bad about Global Warming anyway? Seems to me, less people will be dying from bitter cold. Since everything needs Co2, including plants, doesn’t increased Co2 levels mean many more crops are able to be grown to feed the world? And all that precipitation mister transrp whines about … well that too helps to grow bigger and better crops. (see Stanford University Whitepaper GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals; https://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html) Frankly, I’d rather have me some more Global Warming than less of it.
‘Merica! Oorah!
Finally, it is incredibly arrogant for mere mortals to believe they can affect something as large and complex as global “climate”. Witness the tone of mister transrp’s rant.
Arrogance does not come close to matching the profound ignorance of Mr. Positivity. Who has no idea of the percentage of mass of mammals that humans comprise of the total. Then add to that almost twice as much for their livestock for a total of over 96% of the mass of the worlds mass of mammals.
And how about this: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans. Another example of conservative websites showcasing the brainpower if conservatives
So I suppose if we see a cooling period the ice will recede in the Antarctic?
AWG is dead: For 20 years AT99 has held CO2 as the evil gas that must be removed before we all parish from Global Warming. Professor Ross McKitrick in 2019 found a problem with the math used by AT99 and asked the authors Myles Allen and Simon Tett (AT99) to respond. “One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their (AT99) “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless.”
The results are the CO2 myth is dead, it does not cause warming therefore we can say AWG is dead.
The question now is why it took 20 years for find this mathematical error.
Generally good points but the statement on sea levels 14500 years ago is backwards — 300 feet lower in the Ice Age, and rising since THEN not since manmade CO2…
This biggist scams in the history of all Mankind Global Warming/Climate Change tops them all
This article blows the global fanatics right out of the ice water.
I am writing to provide clear evidence that the above article is right.
I refer any who doubt the above article to this item http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2208-letter-to-senator-james-inhofe-about-relying-on-ipcc-richard-courtney-uk .
It is a poorly formatted version (Americans use strange paper size) of my reply to a request to me for information on climate change from US Senator James Inhoffe, Chair of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that I provided in 2008.
No information requiring any alteration to that letter has subsequently been found (but additional supporting evidence for its contents has been found).
This demonstrates
(a) there is stasis in climate science,
and
(b) there was no imminent climate crisis in 2008 and there is no reason to think such an imminent crisis has developed since then.
Richard